As with any talk of a move toward consolidation, supporters of the status quo — which, we should all know by now, cannot be sustained — plant seeds of doubt to cripple movement toward positive change.

They don’t seem interested even in an exploration of the potential benefits. They discourage legislation at the state level that would remove the obstacles to greater cooperation and consolidation. They play to narrow-minded interests that work against the broader public interest.

For example, we’ve heard claims of racism and elitism leveled against One Kent.

Don’t buy these diversions. They needn’t be true if we do this right as a community.

While opponents are busy protecting their turf, power and, in some cases, livelihoods, tax revenue from residents that pays for services needed by our residents falls.

For a number of reasons — including population loss in some areas, dropping home valuations almost everywhere and the lingering recession — there isn’t as much money for government as there used to be.

It is foolhardy to think we can stiff-arm significant change to our government structure in Kent County and also maintain our quality of life.

For example, would opponents of One Kent say we should continue to cut public safety spending in each of our government units to the point that we endanger our people rather than seek a way to keep this vital service at the level we need through cooperation and greater efficiency?

Do they suggest we abandon the core of the city of Grand Rapids, where we have invested a great deal and reaped many benefits? The heart of our community may be the first area endangered if Kent County residents — city and non-city — fail to get serious about us all being in the game together.

Should we be satisfied with a bus system that only serves residents in the six municipalities that fund it? What about people who need bus service but happen to live outside the artificial service zone? Shouldn’t transportation be provided and paid for at the metro-area level to meet the community’s needs?

We need to support One Kent in looking at the bigger picture here.

Why not allow a creative solution that delivers the needed services in a more efficient manner?

There is no guarantee the One Kent plan will achieve that. But it represents an opportunity that could lead to honest community conversations that do.

Torpedoing One Kent before we even understand its potential is a sure-fire way to retain the current inefficient system that no longer works for the people of Kent County.

Only the most zealous opponents of One Kent would argue that if we were creating a government structure from scratch in 2011, with more than 600,000 Kent County residents, it would look anything like it does today.

No, let’s admit our current governmental structure — a collection of cities, villages, townships and the county government overlaying it all that was created in the horse-and-buggy days — is a mish-mash of arbitrary boundaries and authorities that inhibit efficient service delivery.

We need to learn from examples across the nation where communities have restructured government in a progressive way. Have any of them helped government continue to deliver important services even with less tax revenue?

We all ought to be interested in the answer to that question.

One Kent has been clumsy as it has pushed its agenda. We’ve previously talked in this space about how more communication earlier in the process would have been better.

But we all need to acknowledge the entrenched interests who feel threatened by greater cooperation and consolidation would line up against even the perfect, well-communicated plan.

Let’s surprise them and take on this subject anyway.

E-mail a letter to the editor for publication in print: pulse@grpress.com Please keep letters to less than 200 words and include your full name, home address and phone number.